essay on Gandhiji and non violence
Answers
GANDHI JI & NON VIOLENCE
Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in 1948 as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” (use of armed personnel) to repel the aggression. Violence or Army also like non-violence requires discipline, preparation, and training. Few would agree that all “violence” (power) is used out of cowardice.
He always declared that non-violence always wins or never fails. But it is a widely known fact that both types of non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave as well as non-violence of policy or expediency failed to deliver the goods, i.e., ‘Swaraj within one year’ (1920) and ‘Complete Independence’ (1930).
Even after the use of these two types of non-violence, the society was left unprotected. Evidence is nowhere available that a few non-violent persons are ever able to turn out the aggressors after the latter forcibly entered and settled down in a country. Non-violent measures undertaken later often fail to stop their misdeeds, and, expel them from the land.
Similarly anti-social elements finding non-violence as ineffective or powerless often perpetrate much more violence to society than a limited use of force by some trained armed persons which would do some hurting and killing, but defend the larger segments of society in a disciplined and legally permissible manner. What would happen if there were no civilised or liberal government available to permit the use and spread of violence?
HOPE IT HELP U
MARK ME BRAINLIEST
Answer:
Explanation:
GANDHI JI & NON VIOLENCE
Gandhi overlooked many existing complex conditions. He at times allows the use of “violence,” but does not recommend the need of its preparation and training for its proper and effective use. The Government of India in 1948 as usual, kept military Forces in alerted condition. Otherwise how Gandhi could have permitted the use of “violence” (use of armed personnel) to repel the aggression. Violence or Army also like non-violence requires discipline, preparation, and training. Few would agree that all “violence” (power) is used out of cowardice.
He always declared that non-violence always wins or never fails. But it is a widely known fact that both types of non-violence, i.e., non-violence of the brave as well as non-violence of policy or expediency failed to deliver the goods, i.e., ‘Swaraj within one year’ (1920) and ‘Complete Independence’ (1930).
Even after the use of these two types of non-violence, the society was left unprotected. Evidence is nowhere available that a few non-violent persons are ever able to turn out the aggressors after the latter forcibly entered and settled down in a country. Non-violent measures undertaken later often fail to stop their misdeeds, and, expel them from the land.
Similarly anti-social elements finding non-violence as ineffective or powerless often perpetrate much more violence to society than a limited use of force by some trained armed persons which would do some hurting and killing, but defend the larger segments of society in a disciplined and legally permissible manner. What would happen if there were no civilised or liberal government available to permit the use and spread of violence?
HOPE IT HELP U
MARK ME BRAINLIEST